SuperAPI AI Directory
Partner with us中文AI newsFavorites
Skillsreview-lens

review-lens

Coding & development

View repository

Updated 10-15 08:24

About this skill

Review Lens

Code review with anti-hallucination diff annotation and confidence-scored findings, in two modes — a fast walkthrough-plus-findings pass by default, or a multi-material fan-out on demand. Runs before a pull request: the report goes to the chat, with optional fix application and a saved report.

Triggers

  • Quick review (default — "review", "review my changes", "check my diff", "review against main") → run the workflow below
  • Deep review ("deep review", "full review", "thorough review") → run it in deep mode
  • Re-review ("re-review", "check fixes", "are the issues resolved") → run it against the prior findings

Workflow

Start immediately when triggered. No confirmation needed to begin.

  1. Load common.md. The diff annotation algorithm, the confidence rubric, what not to report, the output template, the fix-suggestion rules, and the data trust boundary. Both modes apply it in full.
  2. Set up. Run git status --porcelain: review the working directory when it has uncommitted changes, otherwise compare the current branch against the base the user names, else main. Capture the diff and changed files, annotate every added line with its [L<n>] marker.
  3. Pick the mode. Default to quick and load quick-review.md. Load deep-review.md only when the user asks for depth or the change is risky or wide-reaching — it fans out by material, at higher cost.
  4. Load guidelines-audit.md for the guideline-compliance portion, whichever mode ran.
  5. Assemble. Render the loaded template, sorted by severity. On a re-review, mark each prior finding fixed, persisting, or regressed and output the status table first.
  6. Report. Print to the terminal, then offer to apply the suggested fixes.

Guidelines

  • Annotate the diff with [L<n>] markers before reviewing — the line allowlist is the anti-hallucination guard in both modes
  • Only report findings with confidence >= 80
  • Default to quick; reserve the deep fan-out for risky or wide diffs
  • Guideline discovery reads the project's files — including .claude/rules/*.md — never ~/.claude (personal global settings)
  • Suggest fixes freely (they are text); apply to the working tree only with explicit confirmation
  • The review runs pre-PR — output goes to the chat (and CODE_REVIEW.md when the user asks for it), never posted to a pull request

Anti-Pattern: Confidence Inflation

Reporting findings below 80 confidence buries real issues under noise. The rubric is calibrated: <80 means speculation or style preference, not a real bug. When unsure, drop down — gather more context, re-read the diff — instead of pushing a low-confidence finding through.